Arizona Finance System Is Ruled Unconstitutional

Arizona's use of property taxes to pay for public education is
unconstitutional because it produces "enormous disparities'' in the
ability of school districts to build new schools, maintain existing
buildings, and purchase equipment, the state supreme court has
ruled.

The 3-to-2 decision, handed down late last month, declared the
finance formula in conflict with the state government's constitutional
requirement to maintain a "general and uniform'' system of public
schools. It reversed an earlier superior court ruling.

Writing for the majority in the case, Justice Frederick J. Martone
found that vast disparities in the quality of facilities available to
students in rich and poor districts are a direct result of the way in
which the existing system uses property taxes to finance education.

"The quality of a district's capital facilities is directly
proportional to the value of real property within the district,'' he
wrote.

He added that there is nothing inherently unconstitutional in using
property taxes to pay for public education or in creating a system of
local school districts to administer the funds.

"But if together they produce a public school system that cannot be
said to be general and uniform throughout the state, then the laws
chosen by the legislature to implement its constitutional obligation
... fail in their purpose,'' he wrote.

The court declined to spell out specific remedies, but directed the
legislature to correct within a "reasonable'' time inequities in the
complex finance system.

The decision adds Arizona to a growing list of states whose courts
have directed legislatures to remedy fiscal inequities.

Timothy M. Hogan, a lawyer for the Arizona Center for Law in the
Public Interest, which brought the suit on behalf of three poor school
districts and several parents, said that the tactic of focusing on the
relative quality of school facilities allowed the plaintiffs to present
photographs and other dramatic evidence of inequities.

'Gross' Disparities

"We were fairly successful in positioning this case in the way we
set out to do,'' he said. "The facts are terrible for the state here.
The disparities are gross, they're unfair, and they're just getting
worse.''

The court noted, for example, that the assessed value of land within
the Ruth Fisher Elementary School District in Phoenix approaches $2
billion simply because a nuclear-power plant is located there. The high
property value yields a per-pupil assessed valuation of $5.8 million
per student.

In contrast, the San Carlos Unified District in Gila County has an
assessed valuation of $749 per pupil because only 4 percent of its land
is available for commercial or individual use.

The court also noted disparities in residential-property values,
citing the Roosevelt Elementary School District, a plaintiff in the
suit that is located in a largely poor section of Phoenix. The value of
its residential property is roughly $195 million.

Elsewhere in Phoenix, in the Madison Elementary School District,
residential real estate is valued at $526 million.

Given Roosevelt's larger student body, this means Roosevelt has a
per-pupil assessed valuation of $18,293, compared with Madison's
$130,778.

However, Vice Chief Justice James Moeller argued in a dissenting
opinion that the plaintiffs in the suit "neither pled nor proved that
the present school system fails to provide children an 'adequate'
education.''

He added that while the finance system is far from perfect, the
majority was not specific enough about which aspects must be
revised.

"If I were in the executive or legislative branch ... and charged
with the responsibility of fixing the allegedly broken system, I would
have no idea where to begin,'' Justice Moeller wrote.

Officials of the state education department have acknowledged that
fiscal disparities result in unequal educational opportunity.

State Response Uncertain

But C. Diane Bishop, the superintendent of public instruction,
stressed in an interview that only the legislature has the power to
address the inequities and has consistently failed to do so.

She noted that she and Gov. Fife Symington had proposed establishing
a school-facilities fund but that there was no support for it in the
legislature.

In a special session this year, lawmakers did, however, approve a $1
million capital-needs-assessment program to determine by next year what
must be done to close the gap between rich and poor districts.

Ms. Bishop added that, in her opinion, the court was unclear about
whether it was addressing only the inadequacy of capital budgets in its
ruling or the entire school-finance system, which includes separate
mechanisms to allot state money for capital improvements and operating
expenses.

She said she will ask the state attorney general to request
clarification from the court.

"We would rather have to deal with the capital issue. Then,
long-term, you can deal with the whole [formula],'' Ms. Bishop said.
"If you take on the whole thing at once, our feeling is that you're
going to get bogged down'' in the legislature.

But Mr. Hogan sees no ambiguity. "I don't think there's any doubt
that the opinion invalidates the entire statutory scheme,'' he
said.

With the legislature having already held one special session this
year, and elections looming, the Governor has no plans to call a
special session. Thus, lawmakers will not take up the finance issue
until next year. Mr. Symington said last week that he will resubmit the
proposal for a facilities fund.

Ohio Appeal Planned

In Ohio, meanwhile, leaders have split about whether the state
should appeal last month's court ruling that struck down the
school-finance system. (See Education Week, July 13, 1994.)

Gov. George V. Voinovich plans to appeal the decision. Its
prescriptions for equalizing funding would rob local districts of
control and require a massive tax hike, said Mike Dawson, the
Governor's press secretary.

But some lawmakers think the state should accept the decision.

An effort by State Sen. Robert W. Ney to block the Governor's action
failed recently when a state agency ruled that competitive-bidding
rules could be waived in hiring a lawyer to handle the appeal.

The state school board has voted not to join the appeal.

Staff Writer Drew Lindsay contributed to this report.

Vol. 13, Issue 40

Notice: We recently upgraded our comments. (Learn more here.) If you are logged in as a subscriber or registered user and already have a Display Name on edweek.org, you can post comments. If you do not already have a Display Name, please create one here.

Ground Rules for Posting
We encourage lively debate, but please be respectful of others. Profanity and personal attacks are prohibited. By commenting, you are agreeing to abide by our user agreement.
All comments are public.